Question to those opposing Trump --

[This_person]

That is not the same thing. This paper deliberately bought over a dozen stories to make sure they didn’t get out to ensure the public did not know the full extent of Trump’s adultery and illigrimate children.

How is that different from sitting on bad information?

The NY Times talks about the economy every day. No one is denying that. Ha e you ever read it. Because all the things you mention are discussed daily.

Yes, as I said, it gets passing mention.

 

[Sapidus]

But it was fine for the DNC and Hillary to fund the Trump dossier, which was used by the FBI in the FISA court. ?? You really are a piece of work, pretty damn hilarious..BTW, thanks for stopping by, I don't normally laugh at juvenile stupidity, but in your case, I love it.

You should go read an unbiased source and you might learn something. Hannity is doing you any favors.

The two are not the same and your version of events is wrong as usual

 

[Sapidus]

How is that different from sitting on bad information?



Yes, as I said, it gets passing mention.

What would you like them to do print and extra edition touting Trumps achievements?

This isn’t Russia yet comrade

 

[Gilligan]

You should go read an unbiased source and you might learn something. Hannity is doing you any favors.

The two are not the same and your version of events is wrong as usual

You people suck. Fortunately, you lose far more elections than you win lately.

 

[This_person]

What would you like them to do print and extra edition touting Trumps achievements?

This isn’t Russia yet comrade

No, I don't really care what they do anymore because I have been completely turned off by the press since 1976 when they printed completely fabricated information about ME. I knew it was completely fabricated because - even as a kid - I knew what they printed about me was inaccurate, and no one ever asked anyone in my family anything. They just needed to close out a story, and they made up the ending. Thus, since then I have been completely turned off by the media.

What I would like (since you asked) is for you to acknowledge that what one tabloid publisher may have done is not even a lick different than what "real" media did for Obama, thus demonstrating that the media are horrifically biased, always have been, and likely always will be. They sat on extramarital affairs of Pres Kennedy, vast knowledge of racism of Pres Johnson, but hated Nixon so sat on NO bad news about him, liked Carter so ignored bad news about him, etc., etc.

Or don't. i actually don't really care, I just say that to make the point.

 

[This_person]

You should go read an unbiased source and you might learn something. Hannity is doing you any favors.

The two are not the same and your version of events is wrong as usual

I used to say the only unbiased source was CSPAN because they just show you what happened, they don't tell you their version and impression of what happened and their opinion of what that means.

I've thought about it, and even showing you what happened is biased based on the bias of the incident. For example, just because the FBI says they "know" something, we are learning that really isn't true at all. So, the bias in what actually happened is coming from the source of THAT, and thus there is no objectively unbiased source.

 

[PsyOps]

This isn’t Russia yet comrade

You leftists are sure working hard to get us there.

 

[black dog]

No, I don't really care what they do anymore because I have been completely turned off by the press since 1976 when they printed completely fabricated information about ME. I knew it was completely fabricated because - even as a kid - I knew what they printed about me was inaccurate, and no one ever asked anyone in my family anything. They just needed to close out a story, and they made up the ending. Thus, since then I have been completely turned off by the media.

What I would like (since you asked) is for you to acknowledge that what one tabloid publisher may have done is not even a lick different than what "real" media did for Obama, thus demonstrating that the media are horrifically biased, always have been, and likely always will be. They sat on extramarital affairs of Pres Kennedy, vast knowledge of racism of Pres Johnson, but hated Nixon so sat on NO bad news about him, liked Carter so ignored bad news about him, etc., etc.

Or don't. i actually don't really care, I just say that to make the point.

That's interesting, in the early 90's The Capital sent a reporter to interview me before leaving on my solo sailing adventure. I wasn't happy that one of my parents had set this up in the first place,but I talked to this man for maybe an hour, giving him my background and he took a few pictures and that was that. I left spa creek two days later and spent the night in Solomon's at the end of the pier across from the tiki bar. I ate dinner at the Chinese restaurant next door and the waitress handed me that days newspaper, I was on the front page and virtually nothing that was written was true. The editor was unhappy with that parent that I wouldn't write and mail them updates during my trip..

 

[GURPS]

You should go read an unbiased source and you might learn something.

Did You Type This With A Straight Face .....

 

[Hijinx]

I wonder what the 12 stories the Enquirer bought were.
Why isn't that mentioned?
I ,mean Sap knows how many, does he know what they were about?

Maybe they were not news worthy.

 

[SamSpade]

That's interesting, in the early 90's ...

In the early 2000's a county based paper wrote a piece including my parents - and their sole source of info was a seriously disturbed individual that I can't believe ANY serious reporter would work with.

His depiction of my father didn't resemble ANY that I've ever seen, and my older sister has a VERY distorted image of him. Even she would have been horrified at the portrayal.

It was pretty much at that point, I lost all faith in printed media. I knew that printing fabrications was actually ok to these guys.
I suspected they were slime - I mean, you KNOW that lawyers are slime, but you don't realize it until you see it in action - but this confirmed it.

 

[This_person]

That's interesting, in the early 90's The Capital sent a reporter to interview me before leaving on my solo sailing adventure. I wasn't happy that one of my parents had set this up in the first place,but I talked to this man for maybe an hour, giving him my background and he took a few pictures and that was that. I left spa creek two days later and spent the night in Solomon's at the end of the pier across from the tiki bar. I ate dinner at the Chinese restaurant next door and the waitress handed me that days newspaper, I was on the front page and virtually nothing that was written was true. The editor was unhappy with that parent that I wouldn't write and mail them updates during my trip..

In the early 2000's a county based paper wrote a piece including my parents - and their sole source of info was a seriously disturbed individual that I can't believe ANY serious reporter would work with.

His depiction of my father didn't resemble ANY that I've ever seen, and my older sister has a VERY distorted image of him. Even she would have been horrified at the portrayal.

It was pretty much at that point, I lost all faith in printed media. I knew that printing fabrications was actually ok to these guys.
I suspected they were slime - I mean, you KNOW that lawyers are slime, but you don't realize it until you see it in action - but this confirmed it.

And, I have no idea why they do it.

I mean, I get why a CNN reporter does it in terms of presidential stuff. I remember when Anderson Cooper had to say, "we're not trying to twist anyone's words here" a day or so after grossly twisting someone's words; they want to influence elections to their choice of candidate.

But, I don't get why reporters/newspapers/media outlets do it for simple, local, easily-verifiable stories.

 

[Hijinx]

And, I have no idea why they do it.

I mean, I get why a CNN reporter does it in terms of presidential stuff. I remember when Anderson Cooper had to say, "we're not trying to twist anyone's words here" a day or so after grossly twisting someone's words; they want to influence elections to their choice of candidate.

But, I don't get why reporters/newspapers/media outlets do it for simple, local, easily-verifiable stories.

I speak from experience when I say when a reporter is on the scene the best move to make is to get far away from them, if they speak to you the best answer is "No Comment.
Reporters--so called Journalists are not your friends.

 

[GURPS]

But, I don't get why reporters/newspapers/media outlets do it for simple, local, easily-verifiable stories.

they do not care, progressives lap it up ......
and then Progressive Web Sites ....
VOX, Crooks and Liars, MMfA, Puff -n- Someth'n, etal blast the fake news across the web

 

[vraiblonde]

In the early 2000's a county based paper wrote a piece including my parents - and their sole source of info was a seriously disturbed individual that I can't believe ANY serious reporter would work with.

His depiction of my father didn't resemble ANY that I've ever seen, and my older sister has a VERY distorted image of him. Even she would have been horrified at the portrayal.

It was pretty much at that point, I lost all faith in printed media. I knew that printing fabrications was actually ok to these guys.
I suspected they were slime - I mean, you KNOW that lawyers are slime, but you don't realize it until you see it in action - but this confirmed it.

In 1980 our local newspaper misrepresented a fight at my school as a "race riot", which was a complete figment of the "reporter's" imagination. So now to the whole state my school looked like some festering racial cauldron, which wasn't even close to reality. In reality, we all got along and nobody worried about what color anyone else was. The fight in question was just a disagreement between two guys, nothing racial about it except that one guy happened to be black and the other was white.

So that was my introduction to how the media lies and distorts to make a story out of nothing. And also the power they have to create erroneous perception with their lies.

 

[vraiblonde]

But, I don't get why reporters/newspapers/media outlets do it for simple, local, easily-verifiable stories.

To sell papers and get eyeballs. Nobody wants to watch a news show that says, "Well, everything is looking good, folks. Not a whole lot going on. You all have a great day!"

 

[This_person]

they do not care, progressives lap it up ......
and then Progressive Web Sites ....
VOX, Crooks and Liars, MMfA, Puff -n- Someth'n, etal blast the fake news across the web

To sell papers and get eyeballs. Nobody wants to watch a news show that says, "Well, everything is looking good, folks. Not a whole lot going on. You all have a great day!"

Again, I get it on the larger scale; the reporters want to "save America" by lying, getting eyeballs, and providing a narrative that promotes their opinion.

I'm talking the local level. They literally will report, "a drunk 7 year old stole her grandfather's truck and crashed it into the local liquor store that sold her the alcohol in the first place". Then, you find out that the liquor store never sold alcohol to a minor, the drunk 7 year old girl was actually a buddy of the grandfather, who had permission to use the car (not truck) and crashed because his medication was wrong - never had a drop of liquor his whole life and was in no way associated with the liquor store.

Why? All they have to do is get the story right, and it's still a story worthy of reading.

 

[vraiblonde]

Again, I get it on the larger scale; the reporters want to "save America" by lying, getting eyeballs, and providing a narrative that promotes their opinion.

I'm talking the local level. They literally will report, "a drunk 7 year old stole her grandfather's truck and crashed it into the local liquor store that sold her the alcohol in the first place". Then, you find out that the liquor store never sold alcohol to a minor, the drunk 7 year old girl was actually a buddy of the grandfather, who had permission to use the car (not truck) and crashed because his medication was wrong - never had a drop of liquor his whole life and was in no way associated with the liquor store.

Why? All they have to do is get the story right, and it's still a story worthy of reading.

Most people just read the news and accept it, they don't go run it down for veracity. In any community, there might be a dozen people who know what really happened; the rest gobble it up as presented. The more salacious and outrageous they can make it, the more gobblers they'll nab. Why do you think retractions are printed in some tiny block in the middle of a section nobody reads?

 

[This_person]

Most people just read the news and accept it, they don't go run it down for veracity. In any community, there might be a dozen people who know what really happened; the rest gobble it up as presented. The more salacious and outrageous they can make it, the more gobblers they'll nab. Why do you think retractions are printed in some tiny block in the middle of a section nobody reads?

Why lie in the first place though. In my example, a headline that says, "pharmacy gives man bad medication, results in man smashing car into liquor store" would still draw clicks. Why lie?